_The Editor of Jewel's Works in Folio_ (Vol. iv., p. 225.).--Colet speaks of the editions of Jewel published in 1609 and 1611 as "edited by Fuller." On meeting with the statement elsewhere, I supposed it to be a mistake, as Fuller was born in 1608; but when I found it apparently countenanced by the notice of Jewel in Fuller's _Abel Redivivus_ (Camb. 1651, p. 313.), I was much puzzled, until, on turning to the Introduction, § 11., I discovered that the writer of that notice, and editor of the folios, was not _Fuller_, but _Featley_. J. C. R. _Poetaster_ (Vol. iv., p. 59.).--In reply to A BORDERER, I do not think _poetaster_ to be a genuine Latin word, though where first used I do not know. The French equivalent is _poëtereau_; the Italian _poëterio_; both formed according to the analogies of the respective languages. _Poetaster_ seems to me to be formed upon the model of _oleaster_, _pinaster_, &c., as though to indicate that the person to whom the name is applied is as unlike a true poet as the wild olive to the true olive, or the wild pine to the true pine. What then is the derivation of _aster_ as a termination? Some punster will say, respecting _oleaster_, that it is _olea sterilis_. Is it not ἄγριος? or is it rather a form cognate to the Greek termination -αζω, which generally means the performance of some energy, or the exhibiting of some state, implied in the substantive; as though the wild olive affected the characteristics and condition of the genuine olive? I am fully aware of many difficulties in the admission of these derivations. I would suggest another. Does _aster_ signify that which affects or approaches the characteristics of the substantive to which it is added, as the terminations _-estis_ or _-estris_, whereby adjectives are formed; as _agrestis_, _sylvestris_, _campestris_, at the same time that the forms are allied, _-aster_, _-estris_, _-estis_? THEOPHYLACT. _Post Pascha_ (Vol. iv., p. 151.).--A parallel to the "hypertautology" noticed by M. may be found in the determination of the University of Orleans on the question of Henry VIII.'s divorce, which is dated "die quinto mensis Aprilis, _ante pascha_," from which it has been argued, that that document must have been drawn up in 1530, not (as stated in the printed copies) in 1529, when Easter fell on March 28. J. C. R.